No, I have 3 that are 4-months. One is Stevie Nicks, a pullet from my SLW hen. She is from charcoal and a SLW hen. She’s mostly black. Her legs I think would be considered green. They’re very reptilian looking and appear to be yellow with a layer of dark on top. In this group I also have a solid black cockerel with black legs from a lavender Orpington hen. Then there’s Cotronella: The white cockerel with yellow eyes.
Hmm. The black feather color, that can go with black on the legs too, is definitely complicating things.
But the white cockerel, with light legs from Charcoal and a dark-legged mother, should be proof that Charcoal has the gene for light legs.
I think the way it worked:
--Charcoal inherited light legs from his father, and dark legs from his mother. But he looks like he has dark legs, because of some genes associated with his feather color.
--Charcoal produced a dark-legged daughter, who does NOT have any feather-color genes that would make her legs dark anyway. This proves that Charcoal must have the gene for dark legs (presumably from his mother).
--Charcoal produced a light-legged son, from a dark-legged mother (who is also the mother of Charcoal). This proves that Charcoal must have the gene for light legs, because he gave it to his son. Charcoal must have inherited that gene from his light-legged father.
If I try to work it any other way, I run into something impossible.
If Charcoal were pure for the dark legs gene, he would have to inherit it from his father and his mother. But breeding a dark-leg rooster (Charcoal, in this thought-experiment) to his dark-leg mother would produce only dark-leg chicks of both genders. But Charcoal and his mother produced a light-leg son, so one of them must have the light leg gene. The hen cannot have both dark legs (given to Charcoal) and light legs (given to Charcoal's son), because the hen only has one Z chromosome.
So Charcoal cannot be pure for dark legs (above paragraph) and he cannot be pure for light legs (because he produced Triscuit the dark-leg pullet), which means he must be split with one gene each for light and dark legs.
I only see two ways that logic would be wrong:
--if a mutation happened (highly unlikely)
--or if one of the chicks had a different parent (not fathered by Charcoal, or the dark-legged hen not really being the mother of Charcoal, or Charcoal's mother not being the mother of his son.) I can't judge how likely that is or isn't.
If you have several of those dark-legged hens, it might be possible that one has the gene for dark legs (and was the mother of Charcoal) and that another has "light" legs that look dark because of other genes, and was the mother of Charcoal's son. I don't think this is particularly likely, just mentioning it to be thorough.